Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Transportation Research Procedia 14 (2016) 2158 – 2167

6th Transport Research Arena April 18-21, 2016

Characteristics and causes of heavy goods vehicles and buses

accidents in Europe
Petros Evgenikos a,*, George Yannis a, Katerina Folla a,
Robert Bauer b, Klaus Machata b, Christian Brandstaetter b
a
National Technical University of Athens, Iroon Polytecheiou 5, Athens, 15773, Greece
b
Austrian Road Safety Board, Schleiergasse 18, Vienna, 1100, Austria

Abstract

While Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGV) and buses account for just a small proportion of the vehicle fleet or the total vehicle kms
travelled in the EU, they are over-involved in severe road accidents, creating a significant need to better understand the
characteristics specific to this vehicle group. In 2013, more than 4,500 persons were killed in road traffic accidents involving HGVs
or bus/coach in EU, constituting almost 18% of all road accident fatalities for that year. The objective of this research is the analysis
of basic road safety parameters related to HGV and buses/coaches in European countries, by the use of the EU CARE database
with disaggregate data on road accidents, as well as of other international data sources. Time-series data on road accidents involving
HGVs and buses/coaches for 27 EU countries over a period of 10 years are correlated with basic safety parameters, such as area
type, season of the year, casualty age and gender, as well as the day of the week. Additional insight into accident causation is
offered through analysis of a set of in-depth accident data from the EC SafetyNet project Accident Causation System. The results
of the analysis allow for an overall assessment of the HGV and buses/coaches safety level in Europe in comparison to other modes
of transport, thus providing useful support to decision makers working for the improvement of safety in the European road network.
©
© 2016 The Authors.
2016The Authors.Published
Publishedby by
Elsevier B.V.B.V..
Elsevier This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of Road and Bridge Research Institute (IBDiM).
Peer-review under responsibility of Road and Bridge Research Institute (IBDiM)

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +30-6945877578; fax: +30-2107721454.

E-mail address: pevgenik@central.ntua.gr

2352-1465 © 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of Road and Bridge Research Institute (IBDiM)
doi:10.1016/j.trpro.2016.05.231
 Petros Evgenikos et al. / Transportation Research Procedia 14 (2016) 2158 – 2167 2159

Keywords: heavy goods vehicles; buses; EU CARE database; road accident causation; road safety; European countries

1. Introduction

Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs) are defined as goods vehicles of over 3.5 tons maximum permissible gross weight
(vehicle and load). Heavy goods vehicles are over-involved in severe road accidents, since their high mass leads to
severe consequences for other road users involved in the accidents. In view of this and the growth in heavy good
vehicle traffic internationally over the last twenty five years, the safety of heavy goods vehicles continues to be strictly
regulated in the best performing countries in road safety and work-related road safety action encouraged (DaCoTA,
2012a). Buses and coaches are also normally relatively large and even though transport by bus and coach is considered
as the safest mode of road travel, every year, around 20,000 European buses and coaches are involved in crashes
causing injury or death producing approximately 30,000 casualties (DaCoTA, 2012a).
Heavy goods vehicles and bus transport is of economic importance in most areas of the developed world. In the
USA, for example, the commercial trucking sector has annual revenues of more than US$500 billion and employs
nearly 10 million people. Trucks transport over 11 billion tons of goods annually, about 60% of the total domestic
tonnage shipped (Schwartz et al., 2007). Additionally, North American intercity and charter buses carry an estimated
860 million passengers annually, which is more than those transported by commercial air carriers or rail (Knipling,
2007). Interestingly, although HGVs and buses account for just a small proportion of the vehicle fleet or the total
vehicle kms travelled in the EU, they are associated with almost 18% of the total road accident fatalities in 2013
(European Commision, 2015). The particular characteristics of these vehicles strongly influence – in a positive or
negative way – the occurrence of road accidents and these characteristics relate to the vehicle itself (different traction
characteristics, increased dimensions and weight), to the driver (professional drivers spend more time driving tan
a typical driver) and the vehicle use for HGVs (commercial use must meet several efficiency criteria, regulations and
restrictions and policy-related issues) (Christoforou et al., 2010). The objective of this research is the analysis of basic
road safety parameters related to Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGV) and buses/coaches in European countries, by the use
of the EU CARE database with disaggregate data on road accidents and the SafetyNet Accident Causation System
(SNACS). More specifically, time-series road accident data involving HGVs and buses/coaches from CARE for
27 EU countries over a period of 10 years (2004–2013) are correlated with basic safety parameters, such as area type,
season of the year, casualty age and gender, as well as the day of the week and the time of the day. Additional insight
into accident causation recorded for HGV and buses/coaches drivers is offered through analysis of a set of in-depth
data, collected for the period 2005–2008, using a common methodology for samples of accidents that occurred in
Germany, Italy, The Netherlands, Finland, Sweden and the UK. The data, on which this analysis is based, along with
much of the analysis and the way that the different types of databases were combined, is obtained through the Traffic
Safety Basic Facts 2015 – Heavy Goods Vehicles and Buses (European Commision, 2015), as well as through
SAFETYNET and DaCoTA EC co-funded research projects and the European Road Safety Observatory (ERSO –
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/wcm/road_safety/erso/index-2.html). The results of the analysis allow for an overall
assessment of the HGV and buses/coaches safety level in Europe in comparison to other modes of transport, thus
providing useful support to decision makers working for the improvement of safety in the European road network.

2. Overall road safety trends for HGV and buses in the EU

In 2013, 4,021 people were killed in road traffic accidents involving HGVs and 652 people in accidents involving
buses or coaches in the 27 EU countries for which CARE accident data are available. In order to monitor the evolution
of the HGVs and buses/coaches’ safety level in Europe, accident trends for the decade 2004-2013 were considered.
According to the following Figure 1, the number of fatalities in accidents involving HGV, buses or coaches has fallen
by nearly 50% over this period in these countries, whereas the overall number of road accident fatalities had a lower
decrease (reduction by 45%). Especially for HGV related fatalities their annual reduction was continuous within the
decade, with a considerable decrease by 19% noted between 2008 and 2009. For Buses/coaches related fatalities
though, an increase by 3.5% was recorded between 2011–2012. Generally, the reduction for both trends was parallel
2160 Petros Evgenikos et al. / Transportation Research Procedia 14 (2016) 2158 – 2167

within the decade with approximately five times as many people killed per year in accidents involving HGVs as in
accidents involving buses or coaches.

Fig. 1. Number of fatalities in accidents involving HGVs and buses/coaches in the EU, 2004–2013. Source: CARE database, data available in
May 2015.

In road safety analysis exposure data is often used to calculate risk estimates, those being defined as the rate of the
number of accidents (or casualties) divided by the amount of exposure of a population over a time period (Hakkert
and Braimaster, 2002, Hauer, 1995), on that purpose data from other international databases such as OECD/IRTAD,
Eurostat etc. were also used. Since there is no reliable and comparable data available about vehicle kilometres or
person kilometres travelled by HGVs and buses/coaches in each of the above countries, the population is used as
exposure data. The calculated risk figures may be used for different purposes, but their main objective is to enable the
comparison of safety performance among different units, populations or countries. Although in absolute figures in
2013 most HGVs fatalities occurred in Germany and Poland (759 and 748 people killed respectively), Germany has
only the eighth higher fatality rate (9.3), with Poland having the highest risk of being killed in a road traffic accident
involving a HGV (19.4). As indicated in Figure 2, the EU-average fatality rate in accidents involving HGVs is about
8 per million population, whereas for accidents involving buses or coaches the EU-average fatality rate is 1.4 per
million population, ranging from 0.5 in Denmark to 3.7 in Luxembourg.

Fig. 2. Fatality rates in accidents involving HGVs and buses or coaches by country in the EU, 2013. Source: CARE database (EUROSTAT for
population data), data available in May 2015.
 Petros Evgenikos et al. / Transportation Research Procedia 14 (2016) 2158 – 2167 2161

Fig. 3. Proportion of fatalities in accidents involving HGVs and in accidents involving buses or coaches by country in the EU, 2013. Source:
CARE database, data available in May 2015.

Figure 3 shows that in the EU countries more than 15% of people who died in road traffic accidents in 2013 died
in accidents involving HGVs and almost 3% in accidents involving buses or coaches, with considerable variation
around these averages in individual countries. The respective trends for the decade 2004–2013 are also presented in
the following Figure 4, indicating that the decreasing trend of fatalities involving HGVs during the last years has been
inverted in 2010 continuing ever since.

Fig. 4. Proportion of fatalities in accidents involving Heavy Goods Vehicles and buses or coaches in the EU, 2004–2013. Source: CARE
database, data available in May 2015.

According to the results of a more detailed analysis by age groups and gender more than three quarters of the
fatalities in accidents involving HGVs are males (76%), however, with a considerable variation between countries
(i.e. 50% in Denmark and over 90% in Cyprus and Croatia). On the other hand, almost one third (33%) of fatalities in
accidents involving buses or coaches are females, a higher percentage than the one in the HGVs accidents.
2162 Petros Evgenikos et al. / Transportation Research Procedia 14 (2016) 2158 – 2167

Additionally, as shown in Figure 5, in 2013, almost 40% of persons who died in a traffic accident involving HGVs
in the EU were between 25–49 years old, with the respective proportion for fatalities related to buses/coaches accidents
being 32%. However, it is worth noting that more people are killed in accidents with buses/coaches in all age groups
except 25–49 and 50–64 years old.

Fig. 5. Distribution of fatalities in accidents involving HGVs and in accidents involving buses/coaches by age in the EU, 2013. Source: CARE
database, data available in May 2015.

Due to the mass of the HGVs and the buses/coaches, persons involved in such accidents suffer the most severe
consequences in collisions regardless they’re occupants or outside the vehicles. In Figure 6 the distribution of fatalities
in accidents involving HGVs and buses/coaches by road user type in presented, indicating that nearly half of those
who died in 2013 in road traffic accidents that involved HGVs were travelling by car (47%). Across the EU, 15% of
the fatalities in accidents with HGVs were HGV occupants with the same proportion being also for the occupants of
buses or coaches in the respective accidents. It is worth noticing though that more than 30% of persons killed in 2013
in accidents that involved buses or coaches were pedestrians, the same as for car occupants.

Fig. 6. Distribution of fatalities in accidents involving HGVs and in accidents involving buses/coaches by road user type in the EU, 2013. Source:
CARE database, data available in May 2015.
 Petros Evgenikos et al. / Transportation Research Procedia 14 (2016) 2158 – 2167 2163

3. Road safety parameters of the HGV and buses in the EU

In order to answer the question when most HGVs and buses/coaches’ accidents occur, the analysis of the fatalities
seasonal distribution showed that there is no clear trend in the incidence of HGV and buses/coaches fatalities by month
among individual countries. In 2013, the peak for the HGV related fatalities in the EU countries occurred in September
and October (21% of HGV fatalities) and the fewest fatalities occurred in January and February (13% of HGV
fatalities). Figure 7 compares the distribution by month of HGV and buses/coaches fatalities and shows that the rate
for accidents involving buses or coaches in 2013 peaked in July and August. However, for both transport modes the
lowest proportion of fatalities are recorded in January and February, around 13%. As the slippery wet conditions of
many European winters are conducive to high severity accident injuries, these analysis outcomes are likely to be
associated with the actual number of people on the road during these seasons rather than an indication of risk of injury
per person involved in accidents with HGVs or buses/coaches.

Fig. 7. Distribution of fatalities in accidents involving HGVs and in accidents involving buses/coaches by seasonality in the EU, 2013. Source:
CARE database, data available in May 2015.

Fig. 8. Distribution of fatalities in accidents involving HGVs and in accidents involving buses/coaches by day of week in the EU, 2013. Source:
CARE database, data available in May 2015.
2164 Petros Evgenikos et al. / Transportation Research Procedia 14 (2016) 2158 – 2167

Day of week and time of the day were also considered. The distribution of the fatalities in accidents involving
HGVs is almost the same during the week days (around 18%) in EU, with significantly less people being killed during
the weekend (9% on Saturdays and 5% on Sundays) and Monday and Tuesday being the most dangerous days of the
week. This can be attributed to the fact that circulation of HGVs is mostly related to commercial activities which are
reduced during the weekend in most countries due to driving bans (ASTERYX, 2003). In Slovenia though, 43% of
the HGV related fatalities occur on Saturdays, probably because weekend driving bans are not in force. A high
proportion of fatalities in accidents with buses/coaches is recorded from Thursday to Sunday with the peak being on
Thursdays and Sundays (17%), as indicated in the above Figure 8.
According to the analysis carried out, in 2013, 58% of the fatalities in HGV accidents in the EU countries occurred
inside rural areas, as follows from Figure 9. In Finland, Latvia and Sweden, more than 70% of persons were killed in
accidents with HGVs outside urban areas, whilst in the Netherlands less than 40% (Luxembourg has small figures).
Moreover, 45% of the fatalities in bus/coach accidents were recorded inside urban areas.

Fig. 9. Distribution of fatalities in accidents involving HGVs and in accidents involving buses/coaches by road type in the EU, 2013. Source:
CARE database, data available in May 2015.

The share of fatalities on motorways is similar for both the accidents involving HGVs (15%) and buses/coaches
(14%) in 2013 in the EU.

4. Accident causation analysis

Additional insight into accident causation can be offered by in-depth data, such as those collected during the EU
co-funded SafetyNet project. During that project, in-depth data were collected using a common methodology for
samples of accidents that occurred in Germany, Italy, The Netherlands, Finland, Sweden and the UK (Bjorkman et
al., 2008; Reed and Morris, 2008). The SafetyNet Accident Causation Database was formed between 2005 and 2008,
and contains details of 1,006 accidents covering all injury severities. A detailed process for recording causation
(SafetyNet Accident Causation System – SNACS) attributes one specific critical event to each driver, rider or
pedestrian. Links then form chains between the critical event and the causes that led to it. For example, the critical
event of late action could be linked to the cause observation missed, which was a consequence of fatigue, itself
a consequence of an extensive driving spell. Links are established by trained personnel directly involved in the
investigation according to the SNACS coding system, with full case evidence available to them.
These data have been analysed to compare the causation recorded for HGV or bus drivers and other drivers/riders
in HGV or bus/coach accidents. Of the accidents in the database, 16% (158 cases) involve HGV or bus drivers.
Minibuses are included in the bus category in the database. HGV drivers account for 79% of this group and bus drivers
21%, with 94% being male. Figure 10 compares the distributions of specific critical events for HGV or bus drivers
against the distribution for other drivers or riders in HGV/bus accidents.
Of the specific critical events under the general category of ‘timing’, premature action and late action are both more
frequent for HGV and bus drivers. ‘Premature action’ describes a critical event with an action started too early, before
a signal was given or required conditions established. In combination with prolonged distance and prolonged
action/movement – movements taken too far and manoeuvres that last for too long (for example, not returning to
correct lane) – scenarios start to emerge of conflict between bicycle riders and other road users when sharing road
space. ‘No action’ is prelevant in the other drivers/riders group, describing those drivers/riders who have not reacted
at all (or at least in an effective time frame) to avoid a collision, for example, to avoid an oncoming vehicle.
 Petros Evgenikos et al. / Transportation Research Procedia 14 (2016) 2158 – 2167 2165

The next two specific critical events of incorrect direction and surplus speed are both higher for the other
drivers/riders, although only slightly more for incorrect direction. Incorrect direction refers to a manoeuvre being
carried out in the wrong direction (for example, turning left instead of right) or leaving the road (not following the
intended direction of the road). Surplus speed describes speed that is too high for the conditions or manoeuvre being
carried out, travelling above the speed limit and also if the driver is travelling at a speed unexpected by other road
users. In general, in-depth analysis of SNACS data showed specific critical events related to ‘timing’ for more than
50% of HGV or bus drivers involved in road accidents.

No action
Premature action
(initiated too early)
Late action
Incorrect direction
Specific Critical Event

(includes leaving road)

Surplus speed
Surplus force
(excess acceleration or braking)
Shortened distance
(road user(s)/environment too close)
Prolonged action/movement
(continued on too long) HGV/bus drivers n=167
other drivers/riders in HGV/bus accidents n=122
Skipped action

Insufficient speed

Other

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%

Proportion of drivers/riders

Fig. 10. Distribution of specific critical events – HGV or bus drivers and other drivers/riders in HGV/bus accidents. Source: SafetyNet Accident
Causation Database 2005 to 2008 / EC;N=289. Date of query: 2010.

The following Table 1 gives the most frequent links between causes for injury accidents involving HGV or bus
drivers/riders. For this group there are 195 such links in total. How often causes appear in the chains indicates their
importance for the road users selected. Here, only the most common links are presented but further interpretation can
take place by following the chains from critical event back to the first cause in the chain, as demonstrated by Talbot
et al. (2009) for inattention and distraction.

Table 1. Ten most frequent links between causes – HGV or bus drivers. Source: SafetyNet Accident
Causation Database 2005 to 2008/EC. Date of query: 2010.
Links between causes Frequency
Faulty diagnosis – Information failure (driver/environment or driver/vehicle) 43
Observation missed – Permanent sight obstruction 23
Observation missed – Distraction 13
Equipment failure – Unpredictable system functions/characteristics 10
Observation missed – Faulty diagnosis 8
Observation missed – Permanent obstruction to view 7
Observation missed – Inadequate plan 6
Equipment failure – Maintenance failure – condition of vehicle 6
Observation missed – Inattention 5
Observation missed – Temporary obstruction to view 5
Others 69
Total 195
2166 Petros Evgenikos et al. / Transportation Research Procedia 14 (2016) 2158 – 2167

Like the car driver group, faulty diagnosis (22% of the links) and observation missed (19% of the links) are the two
dominant causes. ‘Faulty diagnosis’ is an incorrect or incomplete understanding of road conditions or another road
user’s actions. It is linked to both information failure (for example, a driver thinking another vehicle was moving when
it was in fact stopped and colliding with it) and communication failure (for example, pulling out in the continuing path
of a driver who has indicated for a turn too early). Unlike the car driver group, the most frequent cause leading to
observation missed is ‘permanent sight obstruction’. This refers to vehicle blind spots on these larger vehicles, where
drivers cannot see part of the road infrastructure or other road users. Also observed for these larger vehicles are causes
leading to equipment failure, both ‘unpredictable system functions/characteristics’ (covering problems with vehicle
load) and ‘poor maintenance’.

5. Conclusions – discussion

The various road safety parameters examined revealed that the occupants of HGVs and buses/coaches are a special
group of road users, with different safety needs and characteristics than other road users, mainly due to their
specificities, but also to their different mobility behaviour. The safety problem for HGVs and buses/coaches vary
systematically by region, reflecting different climates, cultures and behavioural characteristics, intensity of traffic,
modal shares, regulations and policies applied, and vehicle technology readiness levels.
Analysis of the HGVs and buses/coaches’ road accident data derived from the EC CARE database for the decade
2004-2013, showed that the number of fatalities in accidents involving HGV, buses or coaches has decreased by nearly
50% over this period in the EU countries, whereas the overall number of road accident fatalities had a lower decrease
(reduction by 45%). Especially for HGV related fatalities their annual reduction was continuous within the decade,
whereas for buses/coaches an increase by 3.5% was recorded between 2011–2012. CARE accident data were also
combined with exposure data (population), allowing the more accurate comparison of the calculated rates between
EU countries. According to the results of the analysis, nearly half of persons killed in 2013 in road traffic accidents
that involved HGVs were travelling by car (47%). Across the EU, 15% of the fatalities in accidents with HGVs were
HGV occupants and more than 30% of persons killed in 2013 in accidents that involved buses or coaches were
pedestrians, the same as for car occupants. Additionally, almost 40% of persons who died in a traffic accident
involving HGVs in the EU were between 25–49 years old, with the respective proportion for fatalities related to
buses/coaches accidents being 32% and also significantly less people are killed during the weekend, with Monday and
Tuesday being the most dangerous days of the week.
The analysis of other types of data such as in-depth accident data, allowed for additional insight into accident
causation recorded for HGVs and buses/coaches. Specific critical events relating to ‘timing’ are recorded for 52% of
HGV or bus drivers examined in the sample and ‘faulty diagnosis’ and ‘observation missed’ are the two dominant
causes for injury accidents involving HGV or bus drivers/riders.
The results of the analysis allow for an overall assessment of the HGVs and buses/coaches safety level in the
European road network relative to other modes of transport, providing thus useful support to decision makers working
for the improvement of safety in the European road network. Certainly, the effort of data-collection is an on-going
challenge and there are additional data that could help shed light to the problem of the HGVs and buses/coaches’ road
safety. Of particular interest are exposure data related to the mobility of these vehicles (vehicle fleet, veh-kms,
passenger-kms travelled), but also data on the vehicle technological equipment and driving fatigue one of the most
important accident factors related to the long distance lorry driving (DaCoTA, 2012b, Maycock, 1997). Furthermore,
the macroscopic analysis presented in this paper could in the future be combined with more detailed analysis using
statistical models, which is necessary for the identification of the combined correlation of the parameters with an
impact on HGVs and buses/coaches’ road safety and the underlining reasons behind their casualties.

Acknowledgements

This paper is based on work carried out by the National Technical University of Athens (NTUA), the Austrian
Road Safety Board (KFV) and the European Union Road Federation (ERF) for the European Commission DG
Mobility and Transport, updating work carried out within the SafetyNet (The European Road Safety Observatory) and
 Petros Evgenikos et al. / Transportation Research Procedia 14 (2016) 2158 – 2167 2167

DaCoTA (Data Collection Transfer and Analysis) projects of the 6 th and 7th (respectively) Framework Programs for
Research, Technological Development and Demonstration of the European Commission.

Appendix A – Country abbreviations

Belgium BE Italy IT Romania RO

Bulgaria BG Cyprus CY Slovenia SI
Czech Republic CZ Latvia LV Slovakia SK
Denmark DK Lithuania LT Finland FI
Germany DE Luxembourg LU Sweden SE
Estonia EE Hungary HU United Kingdom UK
Ireland IE Malta MT
Greece EL Netherlands NL
Spain ES Austria AT
France FR Poland PL
Croatia HR Portugal PT

References

ASTERYX, 2003. Case Study: Heavy Goods Vehicle accidents, Deliverable of the EC project ASTERYX.
Bjorkman K. et al., 2008. In-depth accident causation database and analysis report. Deliverable 5.8 of the SafetyNet research Project, European
Commission, Brussels.
Christoforou, Z., Karlaftis, M., Yannis, G., 2010. Heavy vehicle age and road safety. Proceedings of ICE – Transport, Vol. 163, February 2010,
pp. 41–48.
DaCoTA, 2012a. Vehicle Safety, Deliverable 4.8u of the EC FP7 project DaCoTA.
DaCoTA, 2012b. Work-related road safety, Deliverable 4.8v of the EC FP7 project DaCoTA.
European Commission, Traffic Safety Basic Facts on Heavy Goods Vehicles and Buses, European Commission, Directorate General for
Transport, June 2015.
European Road Safety Observatory (ERSO), http://ec.europa.eu/transport/wcm/road_safety/erso/index-2.html.
Hakkert, A. S., Braimaister, L., 2002. The uses of exposure and risk in road safety studies. SWOV report R-2002-12. SWOV, Leidschendam, the
Netherlands.
Hauer, E., 1995. On exposure and accident rate. Traffic Engineering and Control, 36 (3), pp. 134–138.
Knipling, R.R., 2007. The domain of truck and bus safety research. Transportation Research Circular, No. E-C117, Transportation Research
Board, National Research Council, Washington DC, pp.1–7.
Maycock, G., 1997. Sleepiness and driving: the experience of UK car drivers. Accident Analysis and Prevention 29:453-62.
Petridou, E., Yannis, G., Terzidis, A., Dessypris, N., Germeni, E., Evgenikos, P., Tselenti, N., Chaziris, A., Skalkidis, I., 2009. Linking
Emergency Medical Department and Road Traffic Police Casualty Data: A Tool in Assessing the Burden of Injuries in Less Resourced
Countries, Traffic Injury Prevention,10:1,pp. 37-43.
Reed S., Morris A., 2008. Glossary of data variables for fatal and accident causation databases. Deliverable 5.5 of the SafetyNet research Project,
European Commission, Brussels. Available on- line at:
http://erso.swov.nl/safetynet/fixed/WP5/D5.5%20Glossary%20of%20Data%20variables%20for%20Fatal%20and%20accident%20causation
%20databases.pdf (Accessed July 20, 2011).
Schwartz, SH., Fleming, SA., 2007. Motor Carrier Safety: A statistical approach will better identify commercial carriers that pose high crash risks
than does the current federal approach. US Government Accountability Office, Washington DC, USA Publication GAO-07-585.
Talbot, R., Fagerlind, H., 2009. Exploring Inattention and Distraction in the SafetyNet Accident Causation Database. Proceedings of the First
International Conference on Driver Distraction and Inattention, September 28–29, 2009, Gothenburg, Sweden.